On Wednesday July 12,10:27, Wendy Galovich:
> Please don't be offended but I have concluded that you haven't read or
> do not understand the two quotes which I included in my last e-mail.
Um.. Actually I did read and understand them, and my own conclusion is
that
the main problem here is one of semantics and context.. more on that
below.
> The last line in the Turtis quote bears repeating here, "
> I am concerned that we may be boring others on the list with this
> discussion. If you wish to communicate further perhaps we should do it
> off list.
Not yet. I have a question for you that I would like to ask in the forum
of
the list, because I think it would benefit many of us, if you would be
so
kind as to answer it; it has to do with the semantics issue, and
revolves
around the definitions of the following terms:
- tempered scale
- alternate scale
I am not disputing exact scientific/musical definition of the tempered
scale
(which is not new information to me or to most of the rest of the list),
nor
am I challenging your comments about "alternate scales" per se. But the
practical reality here is that English language is such that we often we
find
ourselves having to use it in an imprecise way, not out of ignorance but
simply because the language lacks a specific word or short phrase to
precisely describe the particular concept we're trying to express.
We're in the midst of just such a situation, where the above terms end
up
getting used, with the intent of a slightly different definition, as
follows:
1) tempered scale: a scale structure in which the individual pitch
intervals
are *approximately* 1.059, but with fine adjustments to correct each
note so
that it is in tune, in relation to its neighboring notes. (This is the
concept I had in mind when I said that the CT and MA fiddlers tend to
stick
to the "tempered scale".
2) alternate scale: a scale in which the pitch of one or more of its
notes
deviates from the tempered scale as described in 1).
My comment:
The Llewelyn Lloyd quote which I referred to says in effect that equal
temperment should not dictate to our ears where it has no right [e.g.in
string playing and singing]. Why then would you begin the scale
discussion with 1, the tempered scale, which doesn't apply and then
modify it in some way to produce 2. the alternate scale.
When you alter the tempered scale "with fine adjustments to correct
each note so
that it is in tune, in relation to its neighboring notes", by definition
you don't have a tempered scale, you have the scale which is used in
unaccompanied singing and in string playing. Naming this scale presents
the difficulties you referred to re of the vagaries of the English
language and also because the literature on the subject has not
standardized its definitions. I have seen it called the "pure" scale,
the "just" scale and the "just intonation" scale. Llewelyn Lloyd
prefers the latter. Its requirement is that the interval between pairs
of notes be a specific arithmetic ratio, a ratio that is not possible on
a fixed pitch instrument such as the piano. For example when tuning your
fiddle, D to A for example, [which gives you two note in the just
intonation scale] the ratio is 3/2. Your ear isn't interested in
arithmetic, but it recognizes the unison notes produced by the second
harmonic A, an octave above the open A on the A string and the third
harmonic on the D string which is the same A. This will only occur when
the ratio of the open A to the open D is exactly 3/2. When Lionel Turtis
says " A note infinitesimally flat or sharp lacks the rich, round,
penetrative, luscious sound that only a note perfectly in tune will give
you", he is referring to flat or sharp as measured against the just
intonation scale.
All of this brings us back to the beginning of this discussion, the
pitch of the seventh note in a Scottish fiddle tune, specifically G# in
the key of A major. The pitch of the seventh note is dictated by the
ratios of the just intonation scale. Playing this note somewhere between
G and G# is something which violin instruction books warn teachers is a
natural tendency, is something which many fiddlers do and is an example
of what Lionel Turtis refers to when he says "but how many do not" [play
in tune]. In summary a note whose pitch lies about half way between G
and G# is not in the equal tempered scale, is not in the just intonation
scale, and does not designate a tune as Scottish. It is simply out of
tune.
Alexander
P.S. Toby Rider wrote:
Sigh.. This whole "what makes a style 'Scottish'?" question has
come up so many times on this list in the past, that it makes me sad and
tired just to think about it :-)
To put it bluntly, you have to be either not be listening, or
totally unfamiliar with the style to not hear it. I don't know of anyone
who can listen to a set by Tommy Peoples and get him confused with
Alasdair Fraser.
My comment:
While I can understand that "What makes a style Scottish" may have come
up on this list before, it would be a great surprise to me if the
specifics of what Wendy and I have been discussing has. I can assure you
I listen to this music with great intensity, have done so for over 60
years and have spent thousands of hours trying to find " What makes the
Style Scottish"
Recognizing the style does not identify it in words in which you can
convey its characteristics to another person. Recognizing the difference
between two players in the style similarly does not identify it. For
example, I and many others, can readily identify most of the Cape
Breton fiddlers after they have played a few bars anonymously, but while
I can explain some differences I can't now explain to you in writing
what the differences are to a level I wouild consider adequate.
Posted to Scots-L - The Traditional Scottish Music & Culture List - To
subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
